Sexual Politics | Storm in a C cup.
The massed nipples at Mumsnet are rigid with indignation, Twitoris ablaze with passion. The ‘beyondretrograde’ (Oh the irony!) blog has thrown up a genuine old fashioned feminist scandal.
A woman’s nipple was shown in public – quelle horreur! A generation of women who think nothing of walking round in the depth of winter with their breasts cantilevered with engineering precision and exposed to the elements, find themselves offended by the sight of a nipple.
Had the nipple had a winsome rug-rat clamped firmly to it, no harm would have been done, we are all grown ups, we understand these things. Had the owner of the offending nipple had a spanner in her hand and quite obviously been repairing the family car whilst breast feeding, we would have applauded the sight – better still, had the only male in the photograph been looking puzzled/brain dead/admiring of her mechanical skills we should have been exhorted to cheer. The past few years the advertising quota has been filled with incompetent men outsmarted by multi-tasking women in any given task – no problem there.
No, the problem was that the owner of the nipple was actually stroking it herself – can you imagine! – and the accompanying male of indeterminate sexual preference was ignoring her. Another slight problem was that the company using this photograph in its advertising had already deeply upset the truly righteous nipple owner by promoting smoking.
Thus we get the ambiguously named Joey Abbis-Stubbs, a ‘women’s charity worker’ – not any old charity worker, but a ‘women’s’ charity worker whipping up a storm of protest.
“[In] a family-friendly shopping centre, I am sure many parents would be upset to have their children exposed to such material while taking them to the newly opened indoor ice-skating rink.”
Not that she has conducted a scientific poll of such parents, you understand, but she is ‘sure’ just the same. Chief among her concerns are that the images are ‘sexist in objectifying women, and that they are displayed where they can be easily seen by children’. Not in front of the cheee-ldren! Her ‘retrograde‘ website gives the url www.joannasusie.com. Nuff said. Now I get the ambiguous ‘Joey’.
Feminism appears to have thrown up a generation of men who are openly proud of the fact that they are not in the slightest bit sexually interested in women – there have always been the elderly ‘brothers’ who had shared a home for a generation or so, quiet, unassuming; or the Quentin Crisp characters of the arts world; but as the screeching harridans of the feminist world became more demanding so more men appear to have embraced the world illustrated by this photograph – which should be sub-titled ‘blatantly on offer but no thank-you Darling’!
What could be more natural than a company correctly assuming that they are more likely to sell their ‘metro-man’ suits to young single men who take a peacock like interest in their appearance – and thus not choosing to illustrate their advertising with a happily married man being made to look a fool by ultra-competent ‘new’ woman? A look at the company’s web site further reinforces this view – as they promote this happy family shot of ‘Joe and Joey’ licking their lollies…..
Not that you will see these images in the main stream media – Oh No! The Guardian illustrates this story with a picture of the bland exterior of the Westfield Shopping Centre where Ms Abbis-Stubbs was so traumatised that she was forced to complain to the Advertising Standards body – and promptly told to get lost! Other MSM have cut out the offending nipple lest the Mumsnet and Twitoris storm descend on their comments columns.
The Feminists have spent the past 40 years promoting the idea that women have no need of men beyond filling that all important test tube in the fridge – they can scarcely complain that metro-man now openly shows he has no need of women beyond a cursory glance under her skirt to reassure himself that there is nothing there on offer that interests him.
Quite why any feminist would be complaining at the sight of a woman pleasuring herself given her companion’s blatant lack of interest in her defeats me….ideologically unsound, I would say.
What say you?
November 28, 2010 at 14:11
-
Also, you might need some help learning how to embed images. They need to
be a certain size or they won’t display properly. I can help, one question at
a time.
- November 28, 2010 at 14:09
-
The inaccuracies, clumsy assumptions, weak analysis and misunderstandings
in this post would have annoyed me if it wasn’t for your shrill pomposity.
Hilarious. A+.
Please direct any questions regarding Joey’s name, why I hate nipples, if I
am afraid of sex, what a women’s charity is, how DNS forwarding works etc to
my e-mail address.
I’m already a big fan. x
-
November 21, 2010 at 23:13
- November 21, 2010 at 13:20
-
Oh dear !!!! It’s an advertising campaign that portrays women in a less
than favourable light!!! Well it makes a change from all those ads which show
that men are fools who cannot manage without a woman….men are increasingly
sick of the double standards that feminists have and are going off to find
women from other countries and cultures where they can find love and mutual
respect….Why get involved with British women who see us as scum fit only to be
cashpoints or cannon fodder!!!!!
- November 21, 2010 at 12:52
-
Isn’t it fun to hear the misandrist “feminists” spluttering? Most stupid
comments are an irritating waste of space, but theirs always bring on a
chuckle.
What amuses me, is that it’s their healthy sisters who really
annoy them, but they can’t bring themselves to say so.
-
November 19, 2010 at 22:18
-
Well. One of my favourite lines in a film is from Carry on up the Khyber,
when Lady Ruff-Diamond ( Joan Sims ) is trying to seduce The Khasi of Kalibar
( Kenneth Williams ) because her husband Sir Sydney Ruff-Diamond ( Sid James )
has been indescrete with many of the Khasis wives and according to local
custom the Khasi has the right to reciprocate with the wife of the offender;
not to be put into a embarrasing situation, the Khasi replies something along
the lines of ” Oh no madam, you must understand, I am very wealthy and I pay
others to do that sort of thing for me. ” I’ve used that line in company of
feminists, militant or otherwise, when the conversation becomes a bit heated
over the sexual object debate, I tell you, the looks I get from that are worth
a lot more than a quickie, and not a five knucled shuffled one either!
- November 19, 2010 at 20:09
-
I need a new suit.
- November
19, 2010 at 17:35
-
Looks more like a D cup to me.
My co-blogger and brother told yesterday of outrage at a U.S. website that
the UK advertising standards authority had blocked an ad featuring Beyonce
dancing provocatively being shown before the threshold.
The inhabitants of a nation that goes bersek over a nipple nearly being
reveal by a “wardroble malfunction” (Miss Jackson had been wise enough to
cover said nipple with a spangly star although AHEM there is no way she could
have known what was going to happen) and will not allow even mild swaering on
mainstream TV are telling us where the minits should be? Outrageous.
My bother was more concerned that while dancing near naked close to naked
flames Beyonce might have set fire to her barely coverd plastic boobs in the
ad for Heat perfume.
- November 19, 2010 at 14:39
-
“Neither is misandry and the ‘all men are rapists’ approach that you would
appear to be adopting is just that.”
Pointing out that an image has rape connotations is not the same as
claiming that ‘all men are rapists’ and it is just silly and disingenuous to
make that leap. If you disagree with what I (actually) say then address what I
say and not what you have inferred due to prejudice about the ‘man hating all
men are rapists’ feminists.
I find this advertising campaign pretty offensive to men actually. If I
were a man I would object to being portrayed as a bored sexual predator in a
flash suit. I would also object to the idea that men need to be titillated in
order to get them to part with their cash. If I were a man I would be put off
buying suits from this company as I would find this campaign hugely sexist and
unpleasant in its portrayal of both men and women.
-
November 19, 2010 at 19:28
-
Fiona:
1. “I find this advertising campaign pretty offensive to men
actually.”
And your qualifications to be able to reach that conclusion
are?
2. ” If I were a man…..”.
But you’re not.
- November 19, 2010 at 21:52
-
No but I’m married to and live with a man. He is sick and tired of
media/advertising portrayals of men as sexual predators and women as
sexbots. He thinks things should have moved on by now.
I find this sort of thing offensive to men because I’m a human being
who doesn’t like stereotypes of either sex.
If there are men who lap up being portrayed in this way, that is of
course, their right.
- November 19, 2010 at 13:52
-
Thanks for that Ana – reminded me I could do with a new whistle.
Don’t
think I’ll be going to this lot though – none of their stuff appears to
fit!
- November 19, 2010 at 13:53
-
Sorry – that should be Anna.
- November 19, 2010 at 13:59
-
Reminds me of the man who goes to his tailors to tell him that he’s
sleeping with the tailor’s daughter. When the tailor asks him why he is
telling him that, the man replies that it’s the only thing he’s made that
fits.
- November 19, 2010 at 13:32
-
I’m sick and tired of all the adverts and TV shows that make men out to be
idiots – conveniently forgetting the thousands of years of history before
feminism.
- November 19, 2010 at 14:15
-
That is because we now live under a matriarchy, Michael.
- November 20, 2010 at 08:16
-
agreed – I thought it was just me being paranoid. But there really are a
lot of adverts based on the premise of stupid men rescued by strong
multi-tasking women. It is particulalry evident in the USA advertising
media.
- November 21, 2010 at 09:18
-
There is a lot of excremental ideas coming out of America. Too bad so
many Britons (who now have no culture) like gorging themselves on American
shit.
- November 19, 2010 at 13:31
-
I say that you obviously haven’t bothered to educate yourself as to what
feminism actually is, and you have fallen into the common trap of the lazy of
critical thinking; that is, swallowing and promoting the tired old stereotype
of this “The Feminists have spent the past 40 years promoting the idea that
women have no need of men beyond filling that all important test tube in the
fridge” sort of claptrap.
Feminists wish women to be treated equally. Novel idea I know! What that
actually means is things like women having the right to vote, earn equal money
for equal work and also the right not to be treated as sex objects by society.
It means the right for women to not have their identity and worth be dictated
by how attractive they are to men.
This advertising campaign is just nasty with its suited up, flash images of
men looking bored whilst they pose in scenes which depict good old fashioned
male dominance and female submission. It might be flash (sorry artistic) but
original it ‘ain’t. Advertising execs having been using this sort of sexist
trash to sell for so long, you would have thought people would be better at
spotting it by now frankly. (Hint, it is not the nipple that is offensive nor
the fact that the woman is touching herself.)
The image with the women in the chair and the man looking ‘caught’ is
loaded with rape connotations. It would appear that the advertising team who
cobbled this crap together are either hugely lacking in awareness or are
massively lacking in enthusiasm for depicting women as anything other than
sexbots.
The same could be said for you it would seem Anna. Misogyny isn’t cool and
edgy.
- November 19, 2010 at
13:36
- November 19, 2010 at 13:43
-
“The image with the women in the chair and the man looking ‘caught’ is
loaded with rape connotations.”
As does probably most things viewed by you.
- November 19, 2010 at 14:30
-
It’s that old joke about the Rorschach test, isn’t it? “I’m obsessed
with sex? You’re the one showing me all the dirty pictures!”
- November 19, 2010 at 14:15
-
‘Misogyny isn’t cool and edgy.’
Neither is misandry and the ‘all men are rapists’ approach that you would
appear to be adopting is just that. Judgements on attractiveness are made
all the time by everyone. Never looked at a man and thought ‘he looks hot’?
Or a woman if that is how your tastes run? Visual cues are part of how
humans interact. We judge on what we see – essentially objectifying the
other party by what we label them as.
Smart suits will turn heads. Just the same as a nice dress will. Just
accept it and enjoy yourself.
- November
19, 2010 at 14:31
-
“Feminists wish women to be treated equally. Novel idea I know! What
that actually means is things like women having the right to vote, earn
equal money for equal work and also the right not to be treated as sex
objects by society.”
Congratz! We’ve already got the first two, and the other will NEVER
materialise until they find ways top replace humans with robots.
- November 19, 2010 at 14:45
-
Oh well I guess women just have to be happy to lie back and think of
England whilst some bloke lifts up our skirt and disinterestedly examines
what’s on offer. (As long as we are hot enough to be checked out by a guy
is such a cool suit that is of course!)
Nice message to be sending out.
- November 19, 2010 at 15:00
-
Is the glut of advertising that makes indirect references to the size
of male genitalia fine with you? (Think anything that uses slogans such
as ‘size matters’).
-
November 19, 2010 at 15:08
-
Nope.
- November 19, 2010 at 13:14
-
The Today Programme
”Be aroused men of Britain. Take her to your
toilet” – Feminist writer Bea Campbell thinks that is the message from The
Sun’s page three, which turned 40 this week. What do you think about page
three? http://bbc.in/cWpn6Q
Because of the widespread availability of pornography, men have become more
and more depraved. Not so long I heard a black comedian make a joke about anal
sex on HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU.
That is probably why so many of them have apparently “graduated” to
paedophilia.
It is probably to the advantage of women to be rather more modest about
their feminine assets if they are not to be expected to perform ever more
depraved and degenerate sexual acts for the benefit of their porn-addicted and
porn-corrupted partners at ever earlier stages of their “relationships”.
- November 19, 2010 at 14:04
-
Huh? I am not where the break falls between the views of Bea Campbell and
yourself but WTF?
Correct me if I am wrong but the argument being used above would seem to
condense down into ‘porn => anal sex => paedophilia (possibly skipping
over the anal sex step). Really? Human sexual practise has always been a
diverse thing and pornography has been around since we started painting on
cave walls. Men and women are both known to enjoy it. Yes, as with
everything else, some will take things too far but that is not an argument
to ban the rest of us from seeing it.
Are women really expected to cover themselves up in order not to attract
the lustful attentions of strange men? What a quaint idea. Next I expect to
see the suggestion that they should all stay at home and look after hubby,
never daring to view an opinion of their own.
If it wasn’t for men and women finding each other attractive the human
race would probably be extinct by now.
- November 19, 2010 at 14:20
-
Well, if you like going further and faster than your other female
competitors to attract and retain the attention of the average man, then
fine. I am just suggesting that most women would rather not have to give a
blowjob on the first date and anal sex on the second, just to keep up with
the competition. Maybe they would just like to cook and clean and look
after children in a home provided by their male partner than have to go
out to work after becoming a mother.
- November 19, 2010 at 14:28
-
I don’t know what dating site you’re using, Claire, but I’d find some
new ones, if I were you!
- November 21, 2010 at 09:20
-
I don’t use them actually, but had girlfriends who do.
She (about her one night stand): “I didn’t like it when he started
pushing my head towards his crotch. ”
Me: “You didn’t have to though, did you?”
- November 21, 2010 at 09:22
-
Why, what dating site do you use, Julia M?
- November 19, 2010 at 13:09
-
no doubt someone feels a *right tit* over this .
this has to be one of those apprentice tasks, donit ?
- November 19, 2010 at 12:54
-
Perhaps there is even a moral to the maturbatory women in the posters of
men in smart suits.
Women like good-looking men who are smartly dressed and will do anything
for them.
A man in a patriarchal society would study hard, work hard and… …earn lots.
He would have been told at a young age by both his mother *and* his father
that he would have to do so, or he would “never amount to anything” and no one
would give him the time of day.
A man in a matriarchal society would know that he will get sex anyway
because women in matriarchies are cheap to bed, or beg, steal or borrow
irresponsibly to get this smart suit. But once he does he will find his means
will not extend to providing the other hospitalities such as buying dinner in
an expensive restaurant the suit would lead a woman to expect.
So, the moral of the story is: if you are not already the kind who wears
smart suits anyway, you shouldn’t bother. If you take your date to the pub you
would just arouse the hatred, ridicule and contempt of your fellow men anyway,
and draw unwelcome attention to yourself when the girls giggle at you.
- November 19, 2010 at 12:52
-
It is in any case perfectly true that if you wear a good suit women will
think you have money and will be more prepared to have sex with you. (You
would certainly do better than if you go around wearing a dirty mac using your
Oyster card.) Driving a nice car in your nice suit would turbo charge these
masturbatory women who will be even more up for it ….
It is actually true, though, isn’t it?
- November 19, 2010 at 15:10
-
It’s true of some women in some situations.
A man will still need desirable qualities beyond immediate appearance in
such situations – confidence, wit, quite likely a smile and a pleasant odour
(or rather – lack of an unpleasant odour) to name but four.
As far as the sharp suit thing goes, the way I look at it is that you
can’t polish a turd, but perhaps you can roll it around in glitter to give
it a superficial appeal.
- November 19, 2010 at 12:51
-
It would be quite amusing to have a photo of a man playing with his penis
sat next to a woman in a glamorous designer dress.
If we don’t find that either amusing or erotic, are we being sexist?
-
November 19, 2010 at 14:10
-
Don’t ask how I know, but look up “CFNM”
- November 19, 2010 at 14:17
-
Already knowing what it means, I won’t send my work ‘net filter into
spasms by doing so.
- November 19, 2010 at 12:43
-
I’m a bit shocked to be honest. Is nothing private anymore?
- November 19, 2010 at 11:33
-
If she wants to get pissed off about something she should complain about
“Lip Service”, a current BBC drama that purports to follow the lives of a
group of Glaswegian lesbians. It is full of weird sex scenes with a lot of
instant heavy elbow action and neurotic women with a foot of make up on.
- November
19, 2010 at 10:51
-
Here’s something to amuse you:
I spent three years working as a male stripper all over the country. Out of
concerns for my own safety I ended up requesting more gay venues to work at
from the agency and finally had to give it up all together because of the
number of attempts by supposedly ‘normal’ and strait-laced women to injure or
maul me somehow.
I imagine many of these women partake in similar discussions to those on
Mumsnet described above, yet see no contradiction in assaulting a man (‘he’s
just a man, so what?’) at a strip show, or constantly tell their male friends,
family and colleagues that they don’t have real illnesses, just “manflu”
(pace increased cancer rates amongst men as they don’t want to be
accused of being unmanly for getting checked out).
This wasn’t exceptional – it wasn’t because I’m any more attractive than
other strippers – this was the norm. It was in fact so much the norm that the
first piece of advice I was given by one of the older strippers when I first
started was this: ‘make sure, before you get naked, you pour lots of baby oil
on your gonads to ensure their hands slip off before they grab it otherwise
you’re going to get hurt’.
- November 19, 2010 at 11:52
-
A female friend of mine used to work on a production line. Being piece
work and boring and low pay all the staff on the line were married women
earning some extra on top of their husband’s main wage. The stories she told
me about what happened to any hapless male to enter their domain ensured
that I was scarred for life. The mildest form was verbal abuse but it went
up to physical abuse like stripping them naked on one occasion.
- November 19, 2010 at
12:44
-
Katabasis!
“I spent three years working as a male stripper all over
the country. ”
– can I suggest you go to Gravatar.com and upload a picture as an
Avatar…Ms Smudd will be in again tongiht and devasted that I didn’t invite
you to submit a photograph.
The things you find out about your commentators! You have made my
day.
xxxx Anna
-
November 19, 2010 at 20:11
-
Are you psychic Mme Raccoon?
- November 19, 2010 at
20:16
-
Yep!
- November 19, 2010 at
20:18
-
Then tell me .. is Mr Katabasis’s avatar going to change ? … ? …
?
- November 19, 2010 at 20:22
-
I do hope so! We geriatric crones need something to cheer our
time in God’s waiting room…….
- November 19, 2010 at
20:50
-
Ah well, I’ll just have to make do with Old Smuddy akimbo on the
sofa in his undercrackers … !
- November 20, 2010 at 12:18
-
- November 20, 2010 at 12:19
-
^btw I really should point out – NSFW!
- November 21, 2010 at 07:17
-
“Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased
to…”
Wait. No pockets! *blush*
- November 21, 2010 at
08:17
-
Now that’s really made my weekend!
-
November 21, 2010 at 22:23
-
If true then surely Mme Raccoon’s reply would have been made before
20:11.
- November 19, 2010 at 10:51
-
Posted this on her site but as it is awaiting moderation l doubt it will
see the light of day there :-
“Congratulations on becoming this company’s marketing dream. You’ve
promoted this company without it costing them a penny. lt would have cost them
millions to achieve what you have given them freely. Their online store was
averaging a mere 2640 visitors per month … they are almost certainly achieving
that in a day now. All thanks to you!
The S&M quote by you is farcical but no doubt that will get the company
more hits …. and they need them because their merchandise is garbage.
l think if you asked them for some monetary appreciation they’d happily
accommodate you.”
- November 19, 2010 at
12:46
-
It did cross my mind that ‘Joey’ and her complaint might be an
advertising stunt!
Anyone care to make a complaint to the Advertising Standards people about
Anna Raccoon?
- November 19, 2010 at 13:32
-
Alas, my comment did not pass her ‘moderation’ . lt is however on her
male colleagues blog where he gives the ‘male’ perspective about the ad
campaign
Will it be deleted? Can’t have dissent in the ranks, y’know.
http://www.lesspermanent.com/?p=1166
- November 28, 2010 at 14:03
-
did consider deleting it. you really shook me up with that powerful
blast of the truth.
- November 19, 2010 at 10:06
-
Hilarious campaign. As a feminist, I am astounded by the sentence:
“As a woman, I would like to be able to walk into a shop and not feel
offended.”
- November
19, 2010 at 09:38
-
/applause for coining of new word: “…Twitoris ablaze with
passion.”
So utterly appropriate!
{ 61 comments }